“It is easy for politicians to make promises to impatient voters and opposition parties. But it is hard to impose high costs on powerful, well-organized groups. No system for international governance can erase these basic political facts. Yet the Paris agreement has unwittingly fanned the flames by letting governments set such vague and unaccountable pledges.”“

Suddenly skeptics are powerful and well-organised groups? Somehow the authors, editors, and reviewers all missed that it costs trillions to change the energy system our civilizations were built on, and millions of voters don’t want to pay. The opposition to this is only organised in the sense that we still hold elections.

In 2015, The Guardian said Paris was where “decades of failure were reversed, and a historic agreement reached.”

No major advanced industrialized country is on track to meet its pledges to control the greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change. Wishful thinking and bravado are eclipsing reality.

No kidding.

Countries in the European Union are struggling to increase energy efficiency and renewable power to the levels that they claimed they would. Japan promised cuts in emissions to match those of its peers, but meeting the goals will cost more than the country is willing to pay. Even without Trump’s attempts to roll back federal climate policy, the United States is shifting its economy to clean energy too slowly.

The Paris deal had voluntary agreements and no enforcement — I can’t think why this didn’t work:

The Paris agreement offered, in theory, to reboot climate diplomacy by giving countries the flexibility to set their own commitments. As of July 2017, 153 countries have ratified the agreement — 147 of which have submitted pledges to reduce emissions, also known as nationally determined contributions. The idea is that as each country implements its own pledge, others can learn what is feasible, and that collaborative global climate protection will emerge. That logic, however, threatens to unravel because national governments are making promises that they are unable to honour.

The only real power to enforce (thankfully) comes from dedicated namecalling. It works on susceptible individuals, but perhaps not so well on whole nations. If only the fear of being called a global pariah could be measured in kilowatt-hours?

… in 2015, the administration of former president Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions in the United States to 26–28% below 2005 levels by the year 2025. Yet the country was probably only ever on track to cut its emissions by 15–19%.

The US promised big, but that’s an impressive “gap” on the graph (right) between hope and change.

Japan pledged to cut 26% (like the magic number of the Paris convention – “26″):

But … the Japanese government is unlikely to meet its aim to supply 20–22% of electricity from carbon-free nuclear power by 2030; our analysis suggests that 15% is more likely. Today, just 5 of the country’s 42 nuclear reactors are producing electricity.

Still infinitely more nuclear power than Australia.

European plans are “extremely ambitious” — did the authors say that before the agreement was made?

European plans to shrink energy use by 27–30% by the year 2030 compared with the business-as-usual scenario are extremely ambitious. Progress is dogged by the weak building regulations of member countries, poor enforcement of minimum standards and double counting of energy savings from overlapping policies.

Even when taxes are levied, emissions don’t change much — see Korea and Mexico:

Mexico and South Korea have introduced schemes that levy charges on those who use energy and emit carbon dioxide, and other policies aimed at increasing energy efficiency and the adoption of cleaner energy. But emissions are not changing much in either country, calling their pledges into question. If South Korea mothballs many of its nuclear power plants, as the current government has suggested, the gap will only grow.

The authors keep mentioning nukes.

There’s a clue here about complexity and transparency:

Most pledges are almost silent on the range of policies being used, making it difficult to discern which are actually effective. The EU, for example, submitted little information about the complex pledge-implementation process that is already under way. The gap between promise and action is especially large for the strategies that governments are using to boost energy efficiency, for which the real costs are often opaque.

Is Harvey the thin edge of the wedge in Tinseltown? Has this been going on since the “Golden Years of Hollywood”? Will it be suppressed in the MSM given that Hollywood is so “Pro Democrat” (except Fox).

Roy,
A. Bandt is a Green party member of the House of “Representatives”, thankfully the only one.

Weatherwall I don’t recognise, possibly he means the Premier of South Australia, Jay Weatherill or is that Weatherdill? It’s hard to be sure when reading in the dark.

Gillard and Rudd are Labor ex-Prime Ministers (thankfully). Bishop is the current Foreign Minister whose hobby is throwing large sums of our money away to foreign entities such as the UN.

Turnbull is a composite noun for a vacillating thing delivering a load of bovine waste. By sheer coincidence it is also the name of our beloved Prime Minister who has been having “temporary” problems with the last 22 Opinion Polls.

A bad business deal will always be a bad one no matter how much spin you put on it, it should be utterly scrapped by any self preserving country then remind its people the UN is just a business itself and nothing more, the biggest hurdle in enacting the latter is every major country has UN business associates leading or high up within the country itself, I guess the deconstruction of democratic values was purely a business decision.

Talk about spin. I was coming home from San Remo after the Blessing of the Bikes event last Saturday and, coming into Wonthaggi, I observed the five or so windmills standing mute and still in the distance. They were as effective as the desal plant nearby. Monuments to Folly.

If only Nature held scientific research as accountable as political deals.

I wasn’t going to comment on this as it seems too obvious that Nature is in the pocket of the global warming industry. But then I thought, why not hold them up to the mirror of this from the letter to Nature by McIntyre and McKitrick and put it right here in my comment instead of referring to it.

In their recent correspondence, (Nature, 442, 627, 2006) Mann et al. claim that “it is hard to imagine how much more explicit we could have been about the uncertainties in the reconstruction” (Nature, 392, 779-787, 1998). In fact, it is not hard at all. They could have disclosed and explicitly discussed the lack of statistical significance of the verification r2 statistic for reconstruction steps prior to 1750, values of which were approximately 0 (S. McIntyre and R.McKitrick, GRL, 32, doi:10.1029/2004GL0217502005, 2005; E. Wahl and C. Ammann, Clim. Chg, accepted, 2006). Such disclosure would have shown that the uncertainties of their reconstruction were substantially underestimated, as the National Academy of Sciences panel recently concluded (p. 107).
Mann et al blame “poor communication by others” for “subsequent confusion about uncertainties”, but ignore the fact that Mann was a lead author of chapter 2 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, which stated that the Mann et al. reconstruction had “significant skill in independent cross-validation tests,” without mentioning the verification statistic failures. They likewise ignore their own press releases, issued by the University of Massachusetts, and contemporary press articles linked at Mann’s website, which set the overconfident tone they now apparently regret. There is no evidence that Mann et al made any effort to correct these “poor communications” either at the time or subsequently.
Nature itself must share blame for the length of time it took to identify these statistical failures. In 2003, after Mann et al had refused to provide to us either the test scores, residual series or even the results of the individual steps for independent statistical verification, we filed a Materials Complaint with Nature requesting this data. Nature refused to intervene, saying that disclosure was up to the original authors. Perhaps this experience will encourage Nature to re-consider such policies.
Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. — [bold text by me and I could easily highlight more of it]

Epic failure by Nature I would say. But they argue on in their defense anyway. Why should they look back to see if they’ve left a trail of good, not so good or downright bad published papers, when no one holds them accountable?

I don’t follow the day today foibles of Dr. Mann but he seems to be doing less well these days than he wants to.

Maybe let’s also go after the bad habit science has of building large edifices on such a skimpy foundation that the final conclusions rely much more on a leap of faith than on sound mathematics and observation.

The Hockey Stick Graph comes to mind as an example, climate change is an even bigger one.

If I was to make one more comment befor I shut down and go eat it would be this…

I like President Trump’s approach better than anyone else’s — Skru Paris! Get the heck out of it. Then watch all the fun when everyone else tries to alibi their way around failure to meet the agreed emissions reductions. I’ll need a big supply of popcorn and candy I think.

The Paris Agreement is a perfect example of why politicians should not:
1. be let out on their own without real minders
2. be allowed to make technical/engineering decisions for their nations
3. be allowed to make any decision which affects their nation’s funds/money while outside their nation

No government should ever take seriously any agreements, understandings or commitments made by their pollies at such gatherings, especially from such a party as Paris turned into. They have too much of an economic sting in their tails and well-boozed politicians are far too uncritical.

I think they shouldn’t be allowed to tie their shoelaces without supervision, lest they trip and fall, critically injuring or killing an “important” government official.

I’m that much in doubt about whether government is doing the right job. I can easily suppose that a few have the interest of the country and the people in mind while deliberating about legislation and the other things they do. Trey Gowdy is one who falls in that category and his reelection is being fought with huge amounts of Democrat’s money. How fair is that fight? If conservatives were half as dedicated to winning this war for the soul of my country thy could steamroller right over the opposition. But even if they get more serious now they have several generations of indoctrinated so-called millennials to deal with, some of whom are a real problem. What I don’t completely understand is how some of them manage to come out of their education with their heads screwed on facing straight ahead.

“Nature” — if it wanted to be useful — might report on the total cost of getting to the Paris Accord finish line. This was #21 of the COPs, or parties.
Then they could quiz the readers about other things that money could have been spent on.
There must be something!
Think.

One if Hitlers favourite negotiating strategy was when people would agree to his terms , do then he would increase his demands so it was impossible to meet.

Dound familiar?

” still arent doing enough…”

What it comes down to is setting targets that the communists on the UN who set the agenda for the climate targets knew could never be met, so there is the legal handle to shove nations up against the wall, hand on throat, and demand they hand over their sovereignty under the trojan horse if climate nonsense…

Its an unpleasant mental image, but it fits with the modus operandi of all thugs.

That reasoning is similar to that used by economists like Krugman who said US recovery would be quicker with much greater government stimulus and is impossible to refute, in this case it’s downward counterfactual reasoning that can help the cultists feel better thinking, from their point of view, the situation could be much worse.

Paris was a charade of virtue signaling that was supposed to yield trillions of stolen wealth. The wealth was to be transferred to their buddies. Their buddies were to kickback enough to keep things going until the next grand convention.

The charade is collapsing like a punctured balloon. Hopefully it will soon turn into the last moments of the Hindenburg and the Titanic combined.

As they say: “Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive.” The more it is practiced the more it tangles. The record of the tangle lives on the the internet. Long live the internet.

Just heard Xenoncarbonphobe giving his view and while supportive of the scrapping the CET he wants to broaden the carbon pollution scope to cover industry and the farming sector .
If any more proof needed of the calibre of nut jobs in parliament look no further .

How many Green Schemes must fail
before the Greens recognise they are failures.
How many windmills must a white dove be shredded on
before she sleeps in the dust.
Yes, and how many times must the BS fly
before BS is forever banned?

Completely off topic – Teslas are not a common sight in Melbourne so yesterday was an unusual day when I observed two Tesla Model S. Both were going very slow; well under the speed limit. In fact crawling along near the side of the road.

It was a warm day at 32C according to my temperature gauge but nothing like a really hot day.

I was wondering if it was a temperature issue or simply a charge issue??

And he’s built those companies with the help of billions in government subsidies.

Tesla Motors Inc., Solar City Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as Space X, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times. The figure underscores a common theme running through his emerging empire: a public-private financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups.

“He definitely goes where there is government money,” said Dan Dolev, an analyst at Jefferies Equity Research. “That’s a great strategy, but the government will cut you off one day.”

The figure compiled by The Times comprises a variety of government incentives, including grants, tax breaks, factory construction, discounted loans and environmental credits that Tesla can sell. It also includes tax credits and rebates to buyers of solar panels and electric cars.
One reason Tesla cares so much about California’s air

The electric automaker Tesla has a side business. It’s called environmental credits.

“The question is: what is the lowest cost to the consumer? With technology costs coming down quite dramatically the ability to back-end [emissions reduction] is there. [The Paris agreement target] is very important to meet.”

The fact is if the leftists (and anyone else for that matter) are so eager to reduce emissions as quickly as possible to avoid a so called global warming catastrophe without destroying the economy with too expensive and unreliable electricity then there is one and only ONE option. Move to 100% nuclear ASAP. This is fact and no one can prove me wrong. So why the lack of interest by the left in both major parties to allow nuclear in this country, which by the way is allowed in all other significant countries even where they are strong advocates by the leftists of the idea global warming is man-made? One has to keep asking the question why is Australia the only nation in the world committing economic suicide by refusing to build new generation coal fired power stations and/or nuclear, which are the only means to provide lower cost and reliable electricity that any economy must have to avoid an economic collapse, REGARDLESS of whether the man-made global warming story is true or not? That is the big question that must be answered by both major parties. Until they can answer that question truthfully and change their energy policies to allow the building of at least new generation coal fired if not nuclear power stations as well to meet our emissions target, Australia is heading rapidly for an economic crisis, and it won’t help those now seeking to buy a house even after house prices collapse as many won’t have jobs anymore. The way I see it is the next couple of years will be make or break for Australia. Either we start building new generation coal fired power stations and possibly nuclear ones, or we go bust in a few more years later, possibly by around 2025-30. If the nation as a whole (meaning both houses of parliament have to agree) doesn’t change direction soon we can start kissing goodbye the Australia as we know it today.

That’s the right question Peter and it must be brought to public attention.

IF CO2 minimization is so important why isn’t the very best solution being applied?

Nuclear power production is safe if there isn’t cost cutting/corruption etc at work. Extending plant operating time a few years past the designed limit or approving “savings” in safety features during construction are two examples of why nuclear has a reputation. It’s the politicians again, not the engineering.

Nuclear, with the advent of Molten Salt Reactors, is far far safer than it is with the conventional reactors. And cheaper. MSRs can even use so-called conventional reactor waste as fuel and burn it down to inactive ash, so there is no “nuclear waste problem.”

NZ has a problem here: it passed law in the early 1980s which forbids the nuclear option. Then the only reactors were the conventional ones and in an earthquake-prone country, not something to play with. MSR, on the other hand, is much safer. That is something which is going to have to be looked at afresh.

Australia will respect its ‘International Obligations’. We keep our word, even if it was Malcolm who signed although he blames Abbott, of course.

This has been the segue from “The Science is in”. Now “The Science” does not rate a mention. It is all about the money and crippling democracies and being responsible. Christiana Figueres has made it clear. Cash and social engineering. As an anthropologist she should get on well with paleoentologist Flannery. It’s all about the money and as she says plainly, was never about climate

At the same time in Australia, the world’s highest carbon money grab, the so called RET did not even rate a mention from Turnbull. Clearly it is a huge bonus and politicians are thrilled that they can extract billions from voters without any awareness, backlash or even accountability.

Of course the huge rise in electricity prices has just been a complete surprise and everyone is to blame except Malcolm’s Liberals, who are trying to fix the problems. This is odd given that even Barack Obama said electricity prices would rocket.

The recipient of tens of billions in free windmills and infrastructure in South Australia, Jay Weatherill has vowed to fight any money to coal and to keep the windmill billions flowing into lucky South Australia. This is even when he has to spend more taxpayer cash on keeping businesses going and running Pelican Point flat out while he makes Musk richer. The windfall must be kept going. Free windmills for everyone in South Australia, courtesy of the 96% of people who do not live there and will never see a cent in benefit for their billions.

Bordeaux is not the only region with low yields. Chablis, Mâcon, Châtillon, and the Loire also suffered from the cold snap. In Alsace, yields are down 27 percent. “In the Jura, the frost amputated half of the production,” stated a report from Agreste, the agricultural ministry’s statistics bureau.

Nobody really gave the slightest f@&$$ about the environment. It was 100% about the gravy train provided courtesy of the US tax payer. Which is why all of the usual suspects have been in a non stop volume 11 hysterical hyperbole-fest since Trump was elected. It seems to be growing daily

The had Kyoto, and no one ever met those targets, not even within a bull’s roar as emissions climbed, virtually exponentially.

They went to Copenhagen and that was to replace Kyoto which had time expired, and without getting an agreement there, they just extended Kyoto out a few years, and still no one got close.

Paris was the so called breakthrough, and now we find that (still) no one is getting close.

All the leaders place their hands on their hearts and say that they will implement policy to achieve what Paris called for, but it’s just heads talking like puppets, as the hand up their back moves their mouth and the required words come out.

As part of every one of these yearly UNFCCC meetings, they also have as part of them talks on how much money each ‘Developed’ Country contributes, and how that money gets ‘divvied’ up. Those meeting are the ones where the real talking is done. The ‘climate’ meeting is just for those talking head puppets to say the ‘magic’ words.

It’s almost like Groucho Marx is the moderator at those meetings, and I might think that very few people would even remember the TV show Groucho hosted, where he would say to each guest …..”say the magic woid, and you win (whatever)”. Here in Oz, it’s a case of say the magic word and you win a new fridge, a block of flats and half Tasmania, or maybe even $2 a week cut on your electricity bill starting some time over that horizon there. (Where, I can’t see it. No no, you need to climb this tall ladder. See it now? No. Here, use these binoculars then)

You may think I’m the one being cynical here, but in reality, it’s all those world leaders at these conferences who are being cynical. They KNOW hand on heart that whatever they do ….. it will never be enough to please these people.

So Nature is slightly less gullible about the Big Green’s big game. Nature is still part of the hopelessly corporatised and centralised mainstream media, which needs to be ignored in its entirety.

I start my day ignoring whether some ignoramus called Karl is paid more than some ignoramus called Lisa. When night comes I still don’t have a clue who tried to suck up to Leigh Sales or what was gabbed about in front of a rigged audience on Q&A.

Nature is staffed by a timorous bunch of Holocene deniers, like the rest of the would-you-like-fries-with-that media. Nature is not interested in nature. Ignore.

I start my day ignoring whether some ignoramus called Karl is paid more than some ignoramus called Lisa.

Has anyone even bothered to question the fact that she moved to Channel 10 because they wouldn’t pay her as much as they paid Karl, and that figure was $2 Million, and her new job at 10 sees her getting that $2 Mill.

And umm, dare I say it, Leigh Sales is probably getting the same, if not even more than that, who knows, the ABC is pretty cagy about that.

Has anyone even considered that amount of money they are being paid is virtually FOUR TIMES the salary of the Prime Minister, for what is effectively in the case of Leigh Sales two hours work a week, and umpteen hours in wardrobe and makeup, and far and away the single best Maternity program in the Country.

I wonder how long the ABC will take to ‘virtue signal’ and give Leigh away for Stan Grant, and if he asks for what Leigh Sales is getting.

Tony, if enough people turn them off it will cease to matter. I was on hols with Sydney friends when the ‘events’ occurred in Las Vegas. While others were clustered round the TV (ABC, CNN etc) to find out what had happened I just read a book. Since then I have tried to determine, without luck, what might have happened. So I’ll read another book or spend some time in the bamboo.

For me, it’s not a case of feeling superior and above it all. I love to know what’s going on in the world and I try to get what info I can. But turning a rusty tap attached to a busted tank attached to a bigger busted tank fed by dry dam is no way to get a drink.

I very much appreciate the work you do in accumulating hard fact to add to hard fact. It can’t be easy and it’s hardly entertaining, but one can’t run a world without adults. Though they try.

mosomoso, thanks for kind words both here and also at my home site as well.

It can’t be easy and it’s hardly entertaining…..

I don’t really do it for the entertainment value, either mine or any readers.

If a reader sees those facts, and says ….. Say what!!!!! That can’t be true. They then go and check, if only to be smarmy enough to try and say I’m wrong. I know that they must go and check, because no one actually believes ‘stuff’ like this, or, more importantly, wants to even know about it in the first place.

The fact that ‘the facts are the facts’ is what is in my favour. As outrageous as they must seem when an uninformed reader sees those facts, I know that they’re correct, and once the reader checks, and sees it for themselves then, in effect, I have achieved what I set out to do. They don’t have to come back and tell me I was right, because that might seem to them as losing face, but they have now seen the light for themselves, not just blindly believed what an uninformed journalist tells them, because there’s just too much of that happening.

When the real truth does come out, there’s going to be a host of really embarrassed people.

I won’t be one of them.

And what has been the one single comment that astonished me in recent times. “What’s a Hazelwood?” And it had been in the news for weeks.

Janet Albrechtsen makes it clear what she thinks of Turnbull’s NEG. “Turnbull’s endless vacillation means voters may still wonder: what does he really believe in?” Apart from deciseness he lacks “conviction and courage”. The sign off is particularly harsh but funny “this latest energy policy may not be the saviour for the blancmange Prime Minister.”

Now that it’s clear Abbott was removed for no good reason, you have to wonder what he could have achieved in the same time. A huge missed opportunity and we would not be in this mess. Tony would have agreed with Donald Trump and never ratified such an agreement which demands appalling self harm.

Real politicians sign everything and just ignore it. That’s how WWII happened. Then you get the Chinese who agree enthusiastically to do nothing at all, which was touted by Obama as having them on board and very willing to sign something equally meaningless again in 2030.

Too many observers seem to believe that a PM is a dictator and do not understand that he is also the leader of a Cabinet of Ministers, and that like company boards and directors they all get to have a say and a vote on most matters arising.

Therefore, with due regard for the “Black Hand” faction members of the Liberal Party who were disloyal to Abbott from when he first was voted Liberal Leader and Opposition Leader in 2009, PM Abbott was often unable to get what he wanted. But he as leader was too often criticised for being weak.

There are to be 1600 coal-burning power plants built in 62 countries in the next few years. All of those 62 countries signed the Paris Accord to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, yet their actions say they are going to increase CO2.

The 62 should not be criticized for doing the rational thing to build reliable, low cost energy producing plants, they should be lambasted for lying.

From climateetc where (Your comment is awaiting moderation.)
No-one is resopnding to the last weekend-unsomepthing
Robert I. Ellison | October 16, 2017 at 10:18 pm
“Physics suggests, all other things being equal, that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide would indeed warm the planet. Even so, the atmosphere is an almost infinitely complex mechanism that’s far from fully understood.”

Your claim that “Physics suggests” has no basis in science, only in political meteorology. Such can be claimed only one who ignorantly believes that sensible heat induced spontanious EMR flux is a thermodynamic process and denies that “such actual power flux is totally within the electromagnetic domain; always independent of conductive and convective heat transfer; and so-far conforms to all 22 of J.Maxwell’s equations, G.Kirchhoff’s laws, and the R.Clausius second law on spontaneous anything”! Atmospheric carbon dioxide cannot in any way utilize Earth’s surface or atmospheric IR-EMR exitance flux to increase the temperature (warm) anything even itself!

Alexander Davidson | October 17, 2017 at 5:10 pm |

“@Jim D You are now being very silly. The ~40% S-B real surface radiative exitance in the atmospheric window goes to space directly or with intermediate processing by clouds. it’s because there are no GHG bands capable of absorbing those wavelengths, or partially self absorbed ‘radiative overflow’.”

You seem to be just making up words\concepts as you go along.
The measurable EMR exitance (average flux) is no more than 35W/m² A very imprecise but interesting measurement. The opposing atmospheric ‘radiance’ (not flux, but E-field) at all wavelengths\frequencies strictly limits such surface exitance. The huge difference between atmospheric and space radiance insists that most all planetary EMR exitance originates from the volume of Earth’s atmosphere never from some actual or imaginary “surface”! Check it out with MODTRAN, if you are one of the very few that know what ModTran attempts to calculate, rather than what is claimed by some academic meteorologist .
All the best!-will-

Physics proves that there is (almost) no fossil fuel CO2 in the air anyway, so whether it heats or not is irrelevant.

The 50% increase in CO2 is entirely natural and any casual correlation of fossil fuel use with temperature disproven by the pause.

While the Global Warming argument is over it has morphed into ‘Climate Change’ which must be something very different but appears to be identical and therefore isn’t happening either.

There is no science behind man made Global Warming and Physics does not ‘suggest’ stuff. Even people who believe man made Global Warming cannot justify $1,500 billion a year to achieve nothing but the construction of 350,000 giant windmills. We have a huge Green manufacturing industry making windmills and solar panels and spewing out CO2 and dedicated to doing nothing much except make the players and politicians rich and powerful while the cash flows out of Australia at about $60million a week and another $60million a week to local players.

Speak to a geologist. They know this stuff. The huge oil and gas and coal industries have a profound knowledge of the history of decomposition of plant matter as it is essential in their search for more.

So experts like Prof Ian Plimer know a great deal about climate, sea level, land movements, volcanoes and much more because it is their field. Geology is really planet history and the history of the decomposition of plants is in the chemistry and the archaeology.

The idea that oil is a naturally occurring mineral seems to be complete fantasy, if that is what you mean by abiotic. Even more, carbon is highly reactive and grabs oxygen, so you get carbonates and CO2. Carbon is used in all smelting to remove oxygen from metals. So you do not expect such compounds. However the creation long CH2 chains is exactly what you would expect from decay products after photosynthesis which is purely the hydrogenation of CO2. This then decays into all the many forms from coal to the sludge we call crude oil. Fractioning to make is useful was only invented around 1840 and they had no use for dangerous petrol until the 1890s.

So oil is natural. Coal is natural. Burning is natural. We are made from CO2. So is every living thing. Clearly then people are not only the polluters, they are the pollutant.

Fossil fuel refers to anything that earthlings can rapidly oxidize in earth’s atmosphere, for warmth or power including whale oil and camel dung! The wicked ‘fossil’ now only refers to ancient trees that have not yet caught on fire. This stuff now is mostly used to reduce metal oxides to useful metal, while automagically recycling to trees,that may again become ancient with God’s unbelievable kind patience. Hurry up and wait!

while we concentrate on taxpayer money wasted on CAGW, we tend to forget other examples. how did this one turn out?

March 2007: SMH: AAP: Labor’s $4.7 billion broadband plan
Federal Labor has unveiled plans to raid the Future Fund to build a ***$4.7 billion national high-speed broadband network.
Under the plan, Labor will sell up to $2.7 billion worth of Telstra shares held in the Future Fund to help pay for the project.
The project will connect ***98 per cent of Australians to broadband services with a speed more than 40 times faster than most current speeds…

Labor proposes to invest up to $4.7 billion – including the existing $2 billion communications fund – in a partnership with the private sector to build the network ***over the next five years…
“Nation-building in the 19th century was about building a new national railway network for Australia,” Mr Rudd said.
“Nation-building for the 21st century lies in building a new national broadband network. It’s part of our pathway to the future.”…
“This is a gaping hole in the government’s economic performance to date.
“It is retarding the development of Australian business, in particular small business into the future, and we look forward to taking this proposal forward to the Australian community.”…http://www.smh.com.au/news/wireless–broadband/labors-47-billion-broadband-plan/2007/03/21/1174153131586.html

9 Oct: Australian: Adam Creighton: Why the NBN is a fiscal debacle
The National Broadband Network got personal last week. I ­joined the ***2.98 million households that have signed up to an “NBN” plan only to find the service appalling…
Yesterday the download speed was ***6.5Mbps (about half the advertised “up to 12Mbps”). That’s the average achieved by Turkey, Chile and Mexico four years ago, when the average in Japan and Switzerland was 15Mbps. And that’s when it works…

Since then I’ve discovered that for an extra $10 a month, I can “crank it up” to 15Mbps. “Watch more shows online with minimal buffering.” Excuse me, “minimal buffering”? The government has spent $29.5 billion on the NBN and the best we can expect is “minimal buffering” on a premium plan? It’s clear the NBN isn’t pro­viding anything remotely like the “fast, affordable broadband to all Australians” the government boasts in its budget. What’s going on?…

Labor’s initial 2009 plan to build fibre to every premise in the country was unrealistic. The initial rollout, which began in Tasmania, saw NBN paying up to ***$90,000 to build fibre to a single house. The Abbott government was right to scale back such ambition, finding in 2013 that Labor’s plan would have cost north of $72bn…

Running the NBN on commercial terms is proving ridiculous, like trying to build the pyramids at a profit. Quite simply, most people never wanted incredibly fast broadband and won’t pay for it…

The agreed rate of return of the NBN has already been marked down from 7.1 per cent to 3.3 per cent to as low as 2.7 per cent last year — barely more than the government 10-year bond rate. In the most ­recent budget, the government said it had “provided a loan on commercial terms” of $19.5bn. If it was on commercial terms, then why did the government have to provide it?…only half of households with access to NBN have taken it up so far. And once word spreads how poor the service is for $60 a month, few will want it.
Naturally, being honest would blow plans for a budget surplus in 2021, as ***$49bn of public money (the government’s total exposure so far) would need to be marked down…http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/nbn-price-of-connectivity-will-only-prove-painful-for-taxpayers/news-story/4d4b3db025f50b698feae625d8a6a945

CAGW mob are losing their grip on the generic term “CLIMATE CHANGE”, thanks to President Trump.
***also notable of late, is how Climate Home/ClimateChangeNews is being snubbed by officials. good.
(links to the Communique):

On Sunday, Perdue told the Wall Street Journal (LINK) his personal views on climate change. He appeared to accept the climate was changing. When asked if he believed human activity was contributing, he said: “I don’t know that, nor that I think that it has been proven to be that. There are scientists on both sides of that.” A 2013 study of 4,000 climate research papers found that 97% agreed humans were responsible for climate change…

Since 2015, G20 and G7 leaders and ministerial statements have included reaffirmations of the Paris accord. Climate Home News understands that after Trump announced he intended to withdraw from the Paris deal, the Italian G7 presidency had decided it was not worth producing a statement with which the US would obviously not agree.

Climate Home News asked the G7 presidency whether lines affirming the accord had been considered by ministers in Bergamo, ***but there was no response by the time of publication…

17 Oct: ClimateChangeNews: EU bank to decide huge public loan to Europe’s biggest fossil fuel project
Experts refute EU claim that 3,500km gas pipeline from Azerbaijan is necessary for energy security, amid alarm over corruption and human rights issues
By Arthur Neslen in Brussels
EU banks are set to announce on Wednesday the first tranche of $2.5bn worth of public loans being considered for Europe’s biggest fossil fuel project, amid warnings the pipeline is unnecessary and mired in the Azerbaijan laundromat corruption scandal.

Spanning seven countries and costing $40bn, the southern gas corridor (SGC) is due to begin piping 10 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas to Europe per year in 2019, according to the European Commission.
EU aims to eventually receive up to 100bcm of natural gas annually through a pipeline that will snake through Turkey, Greece and Albania before transiting across the Adriatic sea to Italy…

The European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) is due to make a loan statement on Wednesday for a $500m investment. The European Investment Bank (EIB) is also mulling a $2bn loan, the largest in the bank’s history. An EIB vote on their loan, also expected on Wednesday, has been postponed.
The banks describe the project as critical for energy security in Europe…

The 10bcm of gas a year that Azerbaijan has committed to supply would constitute just 2.5% of the 400bcm Europe consumed in 2015, and make little dent in its dependence on Russian supplies, Pirani said.

***The pipeline’s cost is equal to the EU’s entire investment in low carbon transformation over the 2014-2020 period…
***The European Commission did not respond to requests for comment…

Sorry Joanne & mods please move to where appropriate. I use Joanne’s site for your wonderful preview button; then decide why not post here also thank you! turnedoutnice responded to my inquiry last weekend but the real action is over at Dr. Curry’s blog.

Robert I. Ellison | October 9, 2017 at 6:58 am
“I have no doubt that Trenberth has made many mistakes – but this is not one. The instruments have a sensor that measures infrared flux – and to determine absolute flux the temperature of the instrument needs to be known. Nothing particularly startling here. Calibration is to a reference instrument.”

Indeed! The absolute one way flux is always proportional to the difference in opposing electromagnetic spectral E-field (radiance). To use the magnitude of some E-field as “flux”(physical power transfer, rather than a potential) is a (Cardinal sin) for any direction, frequency, wavelength, polarity, chirality, or parity!

“But the energy budget on a global scale is more the preserve of ‘line by line’ radiative transfer calculations.”

Blow off such SCAM! The computer programs based on HiTran, ModTran, or LowTran are never your “radiative transfer calculations” but only atmospheric radiative calculations for high frequency “attenuation” of temporal\spatial “modulation” through the atmospheric mass low pass filter at any wavelength. They were all carefully designed to do only that; at obnoxious cost; for determining limits to atmospheric “seeing over yonder”; never ever for stupid non-existent radiative flux transfer.
Jimmy Hansen et al. converted this effort into the current nonsense, for financial and political gain by the very few!

Alexander Davidson | October 9, 2017 at 9:29 am |
“Wrong: most of the signal (>95%) is from theoretical Stefan-Boltzmann using black body sensor temperature. To this is added the primary sensor signal set by the difference between its temperature and that of the emitter(s) in its viewing angle.”

I do not comprehend what you are trying to express, but agree such is important. Can you try again from a different POV, without ‘temperature’, please?
All the best!-will-

Guaranteed the Save the Planet all expense paid holidays won’t be stopping . Useless Nation conferences
pretending to adjust the earth’s temperature to some cliques target is pure fraud and a massive waste of limited resources .

If interest rates were to go to 4 % every bit of Japanese tax revenue would be
required just to pay the interest on their debt . Let’s see now what keeps them up at night
failed climate model projects and inconvenient goofs or the financial ball buster that won’t go away ?

Canada on the other hand has Prime minister Photo Op who claims budgets balance themselves
and likes to run around lecturing other country governments about his Liberal politically correct views .

Paris targets missed ? Shocking I say . More meetings to fret about the current nice warming trend .
At least fret about something like the disappearing common garden slug or bee’s perhaps .

So much fun I can hardly contain myself. Not that I ever wanted to contain myself. In what??
Jim D | October 17, 2017 at 11:22 pm |
“AD, as I have said before, it is the edges of the bands that are critical. When you double CO2 the downward flux changes by 1%, and that occurs mostly in the wing of the 15 micron band next to the window region. It may be imperceptible to you, but MODTRAN shows it and it gives you the 4 W/m2 TOA change that explains the forcing change. Maybe you disagree that the 15 micron wings expand, and therefore with radiative transfer theory. I don’t know. There are many places you can find out about this effect on the spectrum, and you seem to have missed all of them.”
Yes the low pass modulation filtering of the 15 micron CO2 band makes ‘seeing’ in that band in that band impossible even at 150 ppmv. at any altitude. Such band is never used. The only change by Increasing atmospheric CO2 to 400ppmv reduces surface ‘optical depth’ from 2 meters to 0.86 meters, with absolutely no temperature change. Increasing to 4000ppmv further reduces surface ‘optical depth’ to 25 cm again with absolutely no temperature change. The opposing “radiance” (E-field) in that band of the same temperature atmosphere reduces surface exitance to immeasurable levels (well known since 1962).

Jim D | October 17, 2017 at 11:25 pm |

“Will, the IR radiation to space is far less than that from the surface into the atmosphere. That convergence of energy is a heating term. By itself, upwards IR is a heating term.”

The measurable EMR exit flux to space from the volume of Earth’s surface and atmosphere is over 240W/m² while measurable average surface EMR exit flux is no more than 35W/m² Where is your EVIDENCE of any upwards IR increase in atmospheric sensible heat (temperature) that you call “heating” ?
All the best!-will-

“The energy of a photon can be calculated using the frequency and the Planck constant – the fundamental quantum energy of course. ”
You seem to claim that your “photon” has “energy” inversely proportional to the time interval of the constant maximum power transfer of one complete cycle of any EMR (quantum, Planck’s (h), which must be interpreted as power (W), or its integral with respect to time energy (J),or its integral with respect to time (action) Joule seconds, also the quantum (h)… However the minimum double integral power transfer (action) via EMR is a 3D (volume) property involving many cycles (wavelet) most times greater than 9(h). Your claim of ‘Photon’ can have no physical meaning whatsoever!! Are we having fun yet? Would you please try to explain your insane concept of ‘time’??

“The change in energy of a surface is the difference between the energies of incoming and outgoing photons – and can be measured in IR by a calibrated IR sensor. To estimate the energy being lost from the sensor – and thus the IR flux into the instrument – a modified S-B equation is used requiring that temperature be known.”

Seems like your concept of ‘is’ remains similar to stinky raccoon shat!
All the best!-will-

The EU is working hard to meet its promise to cut energy use by driving heavy industry away to China, India etc. Their problem will be the growing unemployment from all the lost jobs, direct and indirect. And even in the service economy, computer servers use large amounts of energy, but by using cloud storage that problem can be sent elsewhere too. You do lose control of your data and might start to wonder why you keep getting hacked.

18 Oct: Irish Times: from Financial Times: Martin Wolf: Poorest countries suffer most from global warming
The linked challenges of climate and development will shape humanity’s future
“Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”
This sentence from the History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides is the philosophy of Donald Trump’s administration. Thus, two of his advisers, HR McMaster and Gary Cohn, wrote in May that: “The world is not a ‘global community’ but an arena where nations, non-governmental actors and businesses engage and compete for advantage.”

This amoral perspective has serious implications. In no area are global spillovers more significant and co-operation more vital than climate. The failure to act ensures that the poor would indeed suffer.

This is the conclusion of a chapter on the economic impact of weather shocks, in the International Monetary Fund’s latest World Economic Outlook. The largest negative impacts of the shocks being made more frequent by global warming are on tropical countries…

Nearly all low-income countries are tropical. Yet these countries are the least able to protect themselves. Thus they are innocent victims of changes for which they bear no responsibility…

In assessing these risks, one has to start from the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is a reality. The intellectual industry devoted to denying this is well-funded and noisy. But its arguments are highly unconvincing. The underlying physics are undeniable…

Chapter 3: The Effects of Weather Shocks on Economic Activity: How Can Low-Income Countries Cope?
Global temperatures have increased at an unprecedented pace over the past 40 years, and significant further warming could occur, depending on our ability to restrain greenhouse gas emissions. This chapter finds that increases in temperature have uneven macroeconomic effects, with adverse consequences concentrated in countries with relatively hot climates, such as most low-income countries. In these countries, a rise in temperature lowers per capita output, in both the short and medium term. Sound domestic policies and development alongside investment in adaptation strategies could help to some extent, but given the constraints faced by low-income countries, the international community must play a key role in supporting these countries’ efforts to cope with climate change
(LINK) Full Text of Chapter 3https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2017/09/19/world-economic-outlook-october-2017

While the emissions targets are clearly not being met, the temperature goals are and it even seems to be cooling. In other words, doing nothing is meeting the Paris goals, at least relative to the climate. Of course, we all know that this has nothing to do with the climate and is all about the UN justifying climate reparations as the excuse to support redistributive economics.